With bafflement upon bafflement!

[dybmh]

The doctrine of original sin is proved by the scriptures.
Firstly, it is found in both Hebrew and Greek scriptures.
1 Kings 8:46
Isaiah 53:6
Psalms 130:3
Romans 3:19,22,23
Galatians 3:22

Romans and Galatians aren't helpful. They both twist scripture. Psalms 130:3 is pretty weak. It doesn't say anything about sin persisting from Adam. It asks a question. So that leaves 1 Kings and Isaiah. Isaiah is speaking about the current time and place, so that doesn't help. And 1 Kings says "all people sin", but it doesn't say where it came from, it doesn't really go back in time. Adam's sin isn't mentioned. It's a weak example, and it's only one verse.

Still, Adam's sin could have been forgiven. God would have had mercy; the death penalty doesn't fit the crime. And if God did execute death for eating an apple on the first offense, that would be wrath not justice.

Secondly, the spiritual depravity of man is an idea reinforced by the scriptures.
Job 15:14-16
Genesis 6:5,6
Psalms 58:3
Proverbs 22:15

Starting at the bottom. Proverbs isnt speaking about all people just children, so that's out. Psalms isn't speaking about all people, its talking about the wicked. Genesis is talking about the people of the world excluding Noah. Noah is righteous, perfect in his generation, that proves my point that Adam's sin was not transferred to all offspring. Then there's Job, it's not word of God prophecy, not talking about Adam's sin, it's not relevent.

Thirdly, there would be no need of regeneration if the universal depravity of man did not exist
John 3:3
2 Corinthians 5:17

The book of John, no doubt, does not match our shared scripture. All it can do is confirm that Christianity is a new religion, with potentially a different god. 2 Corithians, gratefully Paul is not looking for another loophole here. No scripture is cited, it's just a proclamation of a new religion with a new concept.

Now, back to the question: Why does God **need** to send his son ( assuming that he has one )?

This is why it is that only God can save. Yet, to do so, God must appear on earth amongst men.

Because ????

 

[dybmh]

I believe you have this wrong.

The last thing that Melchizedek says is 'into your hand', making Abraham the subject of the following statement, 'and he [Abram] gave him [Melchizedek] a tithe from all'.

From such a misreading, we get a distortion of Psalms 110, making Abraham the Lord seated in glory at the right hand of the Father!

I agree, it's not super clear. It's an assumption that the tithe came from Abraham, just as much as it's an assumption that the tithe came from Malchi-Tzedek.

The distortion comes from imagining Malchi-tzedek as immortal simply because the lineage isn't specified. Paul makes this leap, and it's required.

The house of cards is revealed by answering a simple question. When did Jesus become ordained as a priest of the order ( by decree ) of Malchi-tzedek?

 

[dybmh]

All the 'shadow' practices under the law of Moses point to an eternal offering.

Interesting. What more can you share about this? I won't argue, I'm just curious.

The timing of every event in the life of Jesus has significance, including his birth, death, resurrection, and giving of the Holy Spirit.

I can see that.

When did God first tabernacle amongst men?
When does lsrael celebrate their freedom from slavery?
When does the counting of the Omer begin?
When does Shavuot occur, and what does it recall?

First dwelling among "men", as in a community? Your probably thinking after the tabernacle was built, after the golden calf? Although God tells Jacob in the famous dream that God will be with him where ever he goes. So, I don't know? I think it counts. The first time God dwelling among men was with Jacob and his household. ( Genesis 28:13-15 )
Freedom from slavery? first night of passover
Counting of omer? second night of passover
Shavuot? The Torah is received at mt. sinai, it's after passover

How could Christians have predetermined the pilgrim festivals as significant times in Jesus' life? Did the disciples determine the time of Jesus' crucifixion, or the timing of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit?

The Christians didn't. The one who sent him predetermined it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Still, Adam's sin could have been forgiven. God would have had mercy; the death penalty doesn't fit the crime. And if God did execute death for eating an apple on the first offense, that would be wrath not justice

I can't believe you actually mean this! It's a bit like saying, l don't believe that God inspired the Torah.

In Genesis 2:17, God says, 'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die'.

This appears to have been the only commandment given to Adam by God, yet Adam broke this one commandment knowingly. The temptation to know good and evil, and to be as wise as a god, led Adam to defy God. To me this is a clear case of rebellion and defiance. Why, therefore, do you consider death to be unjust? Adam was saying, l can go it alone, l don't need my Creator! And God, as the giver of life, is not the one actually punishing Adam. Adam is punishing himself by his poor choices! It's Adam who stepped away from God.

It then becomes a show of God's love and mercy to save Adam through Christ. Instead of Adam correcting the sin, which he is incapable of doing in his own strength, God comes to earth to dwell as a man (Jesus Christ) and to pay the penalty, allowing 'all in Adam' a fresh start.

In the intervening period, between sin and restitution, the law is provided to discipline and educate a disobedient people. Those who find favour with God are the faithful servants whose hearts are turned to the LORD in faith. The list of faithful servants mentioned in Hebrews 11 reminds us that even as the law exists, faithfulness is a prerequisite to pleasing God.

 

[paarsurrey]

Here are some passages where Jesus foretells his own death:
Matthew 16:21
Mark 8:31
Luke 9:22
Matthew 17:22-23
Matthew 26:12
John 12:7
John 12:32,33
John 16:16,28
John 18:4

The reason Jesus had to die in this manner was to fulfil prophecy as the Saviour come to earth. He is made a curse by taking upon himself the sins of mankind. Were you not aware that the scriptures teach that Jesus died for you, too?

Kindly don't be impressed by a long list of verses one has quoted, please, right?
Just choose one (a single one) of them- the strongest verse that supports one's view point in which (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah claimed in first person in an unambiguous, unequivocal and straightforward manner that Yeshua had died cursed death on the Cross, and quote the verse in full here, please. Right?

Regards

 

[dybmh]

I can't believe you actually mean this! It's a bit like saying, l don't believe that God inspired the Torah.

Not at all. I'm simply going by what is in the text. God made a rule with a death penalty. When the rule was broken, a lesser penalty was handed out. That's literally what it says.

In Genesis 2:17, God says, 'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die'.

Yes, but the story continues past that 1 verse.

In Genesis 3:17, God says, 'And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;'

Notice! 'all the days of your life'

So... at first God says you will die that day; then after the sin, God has mercy and grants Adam multiple days. The death penalty given has been reduced.

This appears to have been the only commandment given to Adam by God, yet Adam broke this one commandment knowingly. The temptation to know good and evil, and to be as wise as a god, led Adam to defy God. To me this is a clear case of rebellion and defiance. Why, therefore, do you consider death to be unjust? Adam was saying, l can go it alone, l don't need my Creator! And God, as the giver of life, is not the one actually punishing Adam. Adam is punishing himself by his poor choices! It's Adam who stepped away from God.

The first commandment given was to reproduce and fill the earth. That can't happen if you're dead on day one. God's priorities were first populate the earth, second be subservient.

Adam wasn't told by God that the tree would make him like a God; that was told to Eve by the serpent.

We don't know what Eve told Adam after she ate the forbidden fruit.

The death penalty is not appropriate because Adam did not shed blood. The punishment doesnt fit the crime.

So, this narrative about Adam and his rebellion is another assumption. Your proposal is that Adam wanted to be like God. That's filling in the blanks of the story. Maybe that's what happened. Maybe Eve came to him and said, I know good and evil, I'm like God, do you want this too? But, there's another equally plausible set of events.

Eve eats the fruit, and knows good and evil. Knowing evil is terrifying. She screams. Adam hears her voice. He goes to her, and she confesses. She tells him she ate and she's going to die. Adam, in love with her, doesn't want to live without her. The only way out is death for himself. So he eats the fruit. Not because he wants to be like God, not out of rebellion. He is actually submitting to the will of God, and he is choosing to die. It is an early version of Romeo and Juliet. It's a love story.

So, it doesn't have to be a terrible crime that Adam committed. Reviewing the details again. Yes he sinned, but God knew the details, of course. God questions them just to see if they will confess. They do. The penalty given is a reduced sentence. Adam is told he will live for days. The punishment for eating forbidden food is reduced to toiling for the food he will eat; the punishment fits the crime. Then God makes clothes for them, a sign of blessing and forgiveness, and sends them out of the garden. And they are able to complete the original actual first commandment whch was to populate the earth.

It then becomes a show of God's love and mercy to save Adam through Christ. Instead of Adam correcting the sin, which he is incapable of doing in his own strength, God comes to earth to dwell as a man (Jesus Christ) and to pay the penalty, allowing 'all in Adam' a fresh start.

You brought 1 verse, just one, and built a whole story around it about Jesus.

I brought the entire story, and a plausible alternative to the Jesus narrative.

Scripturally, which explanation make the stronger case? Mine does, of course.

If the claim is, Adam and Eve were immediately distant from God as soon as they sinned, then why does God make them clothes AND dress them himself? Hmmmm? Just focusing on one verse doesn't explain the story.

In the intervening period, between sin and restitution, the law is provided to discipline and educate a disobedient people. Those who find favour with God are the faithful servants whose hearts are turned to the LORD in faith. The list of faithful servants mentioned in Hebrews 11 reminds us that even as the law exists, faithfulness is a prerequisite to pleasing God.

The law isn't for you; you wouldn't understand it even if I explained it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Kindly don't be impressed by a long list of verses one has quoted, please, right?
Just choose one (a single one) of them- the strongest verse that supports one's view point in which (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah claimed in first person in an unambiguous, unequivocal and straightforward manner that Yeshua had died cursed death on the Cross, and quote the verse in full here, please. Right?

Regards

I have provided you with evidence from ALL FOUR GOSPELS that Jesus foretold his own death.

If you would like me to quote just one, then let me use Luke 9:22.
[Jesus] 'Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.'

If you don't think that 'be slain' has anything to do with crucifixion, then add John 12:32,33:
'And l, if l be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
This he said, signifying what death he should die.'

 

[Redemptionsong]

In Genesis 3:17, God says, 'And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;'

Notice! 'all the days of your life'

So... at first God says you will die that day; then after the sin, God has mercy and grants Adam multiple days. The death penalty given has been reduced.

To my understanding, God created Adam as a body, soul and spirit. First his body was formed, then his body/soul was given life by the breath of God's Spirit [Genesis 2:7].

Death of the soul/body begins to take place from the moment the Spirit of God is withdrawn from a man (signifying a spiritual death). It takes time for bodily corruption to occur, but the end result is death of both soul and body.

Did God not tell Adam he would die 'in the day'? God's day, taken as a thousand years [2 Peter 3:8], makes Adam's death, at 930 years, 'in the day'.

New birth, or regeneration, occurs when the Holy Spirit brings life to a 'dead' soul. The day of bodily resurrection must be awaited. Nevertheless, glimpses of the the regeneration of the body are seen in miracles and healing ['shadows' of the glory to come].

It is also worth noting that Eve was made of the rib of Adam. In other words, the bride, Eve, is the body of Adam, and Adam, as the head, takes upon himself the sin of his body. Adam may not have been tempted by Satan, but he trusted in his 'help meet', and shared in her sin.

Christ reverses this process because in dying he overcomes death. His resurrection becomes the proof of his sinlessness. Jesus Christ is then raised in glory, becoming the head over the Church, his spiritual body on earth.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The law isn't for you; you wouldn't understand it even if I explained it.

I accept that l live under grace, but l believe that Christ was meant for Jew and Gentile alike, each in their own time.

Can a Jew be saved without acknowledging Jesus Christ as his head? I don't think so. There will only be one King over Judah and Israel. Who is it to be?

 

[dybmh]

To my understanding, God created Adam as a body, soul and spirit. First his body was formed, then his body/soul was given life by the breath of God's Spirit [Genesis 2:7].

Agreed on condition that "God's Spirit" is not Jesus.

Death of the soul/body begins to take place from the moment the Spirit of God is withdrawn from a man (signifying a spiritual death). It takes time for bodily corruption to occur, but the end result is death of both soul and body.

This is an assumption. None of this is scriptural.

Did God not tell Adam he would die 'in the day'? God's day, taken as a thousand years [2 Peter 3:8], makes Adam's death, at 930 years, 'in the day'.

I have repeatedly shown this is false. And you repeatedly trot it out anyway. Are you blind?

Here is the verse from Peter, usig your preferred translation:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
​

The condition fails. Adam was not "with the Lord". You're telling me that Adam was seperated from God's Spirit after he sinned. So this verse doesn't apply.

New birth, or regeneration, occurs when the Holy Spirit brings life to a 'dead' soul. The day of bodily resurrection must be awaited. Nevertheless, glimpses of the the regeneration of the body are seen in miracles and healing ['shadows' of the glory to come].

Again, no scripture, just a fictional story.

It is also worth noting that Eve was made of the rib of Adam. In other words, the bride, Eve, is the body of Adam, and Adam, as the head, takes upon himself the sin of his body. Adam may not have been tempted by Satan, but he trusted in his 'help meet', and shared in her sin.

OK. At least this is connected to the text. Thank you. It's a bit of a stretch though. Technically God "built" Eve from Adam. The KJV translates it as "made", but, i's actually "built". See below:

So, is she *really* part of Adam's body still? I don't think so. If you want to stick with "made", "made" implies complete, done, finished. In other words, she's a "complete, done, finished" new person, and is no longer an incomplete part of Adam.

But, if we assume you're right, that doesn't change 2 important points:

1. God says explicitly Adam will live multiple days. The penalty was explicitly reduced.
2. God makes clothes for both Adam and Eve and dresses them himself showing forgiveness

And BTW, I'm not arguing that Adam didn't sin. All I'm saying is the punishment was reduced, and there's no reason to think that the sin persisted generation to generation without end. I refer you back, again, to Genesis 8:21 which suggests that the curse from Genesis 3:17 was forgiven.

Christ reverses this process because in dying he overcomes death. His resurrection becomes the proof of his sinlessness. Jesus Christ is then raised in glory, becoming the head over the Church, his spiritual body on earth.

This is fiction. Imaginary. Physical death and ressurection has nothing to do with sin.

Christians who are saved and sinless in Christ still age and die. Innocent children die. Adam sinned and lived for approx. 1000 years.

If you want to talk about spiritual life and spiritual death, that's fine. But it's not going to prove anything about Jesus. Was he really sinless? Ressurecting and making wonders won't determine that.

​

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Kindly don't be impressed by a long list of verses one has quoted, please, right?
Just choose one (a single one) of them- the strongest verse that supports one's view point in which (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah claimed in first person in an unambiguous, unequivocal and straightforward manner that Yeshua had died cursed death on the Cross, and quote the verse in full here, please. Right?
Regards

I have provided you with evidence from ALL FOUR GOSPELS that Jesus foretold his own death.

If you would like me to quote just one, then let me use Luke 9:22.
[Jesus] 'Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.'

If you don't think that 'be slain' has anything to do with crucifixion, then add John 12:32,33:
'And l, if l be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
This he said, signifying what death he should die.'

So, one cannot select one verse- the strongest verse that supports one's view point in which (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah claimed in first person in an unambiguous, unequivocal and straightforward manner that Yeshua had died cursed death on the Cross, kindly try another time, please? Right?

Regards
_______________
*Neither (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah believed in false Hellenist-Pauline* (dying, rising, atoning, ascending)* deity nor he ever, even once, gave any such teachings to his follower to believe in it, one gets to know, please, right?

 

[dybmh]

I accept that l live under grace, but l believe that Christ was meant for Jew and Gentile alike, each in their own time.

Well... ya know ... it all depends on how one defines Christ. We have our own salvation, and it doesn't need God to have offspring. No one needs to die on a cross. And our future King doesn't have to be perfect.

Can a Jew be saved without acknowledging Jesus Christ as his head? I don't think so. There will only be one King over Judah and Israel. Who is it to be?

It's a mystery. No one really knows.

 

[dybmh]

@Redemptionsong ,

Since you haven't replied this morning, I'm thinking maybe you're finished debating. If so, it's time to tally up the results: Spiritual Blindness vs. Spiritual Hallucinations.

Spiritual Blindness:

1. Post #21: Psalm 22 is about the crucifixion? Yes, it's similar to the Gospel story in a few places.
2. Post #358: God is unknowable? No. That was my mistake.

Spiritual Hallucinations:

1. Post #1: The drunk in Isaiah 29:9 refers to Acts 2? No, that ignores verses 8 and 10.
2. Post #21: Hundreds of prophesies have been fulfilled and the rest will follow in time? None of the difficult prophecies have been fulfilled.
3. Post #31: Isaiah 42:6-7 indicates a blindness which persists outside Isaiah's time and place? No.
4. Post #33: Christ of God is without sin? Book of John demonstrates otherwise in at least 2 places.
5. Post #40: Each of Adam's descendents are promised death? No. Scripture doesn't say that. This is imagined.
6. Post #42: Mark 13:30 isn't false true because the Church exists? No.
7. Post #55: Isaiah 56:10-11 is true for Jewish people beyond Isaiah's time and place? No.
8. Post #57: Acts is true because Acts says it's true? No.
9. Post #62: Satan appears early in scripture? No. The first appearance in in Job.
10. Post #81: There are numerous passages in Hebrew scriptures which show that the messiah is not just a man? No, those passages speak about God, not the future King, the Jewish messiah.
11. Post #88: Isaiah 61:1-2 is the Jewish messiah speaking first person through Isaiah? No! The verse clearly says the words come from the LORD God. The subject is preaching and proclaiming, not salvation.
12. Post #95: the curse of Jeconiah was never lifted? Yes it was, Jeconiah had children, the curse was to remain childless.
13. Post #95: Pslam 110 has someone acting as mediator sitting at God's right hand? No one is sitting, no one is mediating.
14. Post #97: Jesus was perfect? No. Again, the book of John shows this.
15. Post #98: fulfilling the law is the same as following the law in Christianity? No. The law is a curse and a burden per Paul.
16. Post #98: You can tell a tree by its fruit? No. The fruit of tree of knowledge of good and evil is not "good".
17. Post #102: Verses in Isaiah 11 and 49 which talk about the messiah indicate that Isaiah 61 is talking about the messiah? No.
18. Post #120: None of the prophets can be a light to the Gentiles? Um Christians love Isaiah.
19. Post #120: None of the prophets can deliver from sin? No, they preach repentence which delivers from sin.
20. Post #120: Ezekiel and Isaiah are prophecying about Jesus? No. They are speaking about the "servant Jacob".
21. Post #121: A person cannot love God through an image or idol? Love prevents sin? No.
22. Post #127: The oneness of God makes idolatry impossible? No.
23. Post #129: A day is a thousand years in Hosea 6? No.
24. Post #129: No Jewish person ever since Hosea was written has acknowledged their offense and sought God's face? No.
25. Post #139: the remnant are the ones who accept Jesus as God incarnate? No. That is an egyptian religious concept, it's forbidden.
26. Post #177: Psalms 90:4 indicates a day is a thousand years? No.
27. Post #177: Somehow the Talmud supports Christian theology? No. I repeated asserts that Jews can return to God through repentence. No Jesus needed.
28. Post #189: Michah 5:2 refers to Jesus? No. Jesus was never ruler.
29. Post #196: A day is a thousand years exists in Hebrew scriptures? No.
30. Post #196: The concept of new heaven and new earth requires a day to be a thousand years? No it doesn't.
31. Post #196: Jesus was anointed? No. never actually anointed.
32. Post #223: The "I" in Isaiah 8:17-18 is the messiah? No. The word of God prophecy departed in the previous verse.
33. Post #235: Mark 14:3-6 is Jesus being anointed? No. wrong oil.
34. Post #237: Christ is the word of God? No. Book of John proves it. And there are multiple "words of God" Psalms 12:6-7.
35. Post #267: Baptism is the same as anointing? No. water vs. oil.
36. Post #267: Daniel 7 talks about Jesus? No. "like a son-of-man" is just a human form in a dream.
37. Pos #267: Implied that only Jesus has been ressurected? No. There's at least 1 other story out there of ressurection. Jesus was not the only one.
38. Post #270: Numbers 25:12-13 is about Jesus? No. It's specifically about Pinchas. Verses are ignored here.
39. Post #270: Malachi 2:5-7 is about Jesus? No. It's specifically about the Levites. Vereses are ignored here.
40. Post #287: The dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit? No. It's a symbol of Ahshera an other-god.
41. Post #299: Rejecting God's son is idol worship? No. No one is worshipping anything by rejection.
42. Post #299: David knew he had a Lord, Christ? No. That is imagined.
43. Post #302: There is a throne in Psalm 110? No.
44. Post #302: the rod in Psalms 110 is the same as the branch in Isaiah 11? No. Different words in Hebrew.
45. Post #302: Psalms 110 must be talking about Jesus? No. Jesus was not blessed nor ordained by Malchi-tzedek.
46. Post #306: Again Isaiah 61:1-2 is claimed to be the Jewish messiah? No. Those verses are about preaching and proclaiming nothing more.
47. Post #313: Jewish messiah is a King and a Priest? No.
48. Post #314: Viewing Psalm 110 as referencing Abraham is idol worship? No. No worship.
49. Post #314: Viewing Isaiah 61:1-2 as speaking about Isaiah himself preaching and proclaiming is idol worship? No.
50. Post #317: The law is temporary until sin can be washed away? No.
51. Post #325: The right hand of God is God? No.
52. Post #329: Psalm 80 talks about the Messiah because son-of-man is mentioned? No.
53. Post #330: The image like a son-of-man cannot represent a nation? No. A king represents a nation symbolically. It's a dream.
54. Post #334: Unwillingness to attach God's attributes to God's spirit is a sign of spritual blindness? No. It is adherence to the word of The LORD.
55. Post #334: The kingdom in Daniel is the same Kingdom Jesus spoke about? No. Daniel's dream puts no conditions on the new Kingdom. Jesus' kingdom comes with conditions. ( Mark 10:15, Matthew 7:21, John 3:3 )
56. Post #338: Again Jesus was not anointed as ruler.
57. Post #340: worship in truth and spirit requires indwelling of Holy Spirit? No.
58. Post #343: circumcision of the flesh is not an eternal commandment? No.
59. Post #345: If God chooses a king, that King must be acknowledged as God? No.
60. Post #345: temporal thinking leads to idol worship? No.
61. Post #346: Christ is present at creation? No.
62. Post #346: Christ is present at Abel's offering? No.
63. Post #346: Christ is present with Noah? No.
64. Post #346: Christ is present with Joseph in egypt? No.
65. Post #346: Christ was with Moses in the wilderness? No.
66. Post #346: Christ was with Joshua during the conquest? No.
67. Post #346: Christ was with King David? No.
68. Post #346: Christ is everywhere? No.
69. Post #356: Psalm 18 is about Christ? No. Christ was never anointed.
70. Post #357: Paul doesn't encourage breaking the law? No, he definitely does.
71. Post #366: Cicumcision of the heart replaces circumcision of the flesh? No. ( Ezekiel 44:9 )
72. Post #369: Isaiah's prophecies about blindness speak about current people? No.
73. Post #392: Ezekiel 44:7 overrules Ezekiel 44:9? No, that's reading the text backwards.
74. Post #414: 2 Samuel encourages a new covenant as the new cart? No.
75. Post #414: Ezekiel 37 is fulfilled in Matthew 27? No. The condition in Ezekiel was not met.
76. Post #441: John the baptist says Jesus was chosen by God to rule? No.
77. Post #445: the suffering servant is Jesus? No. he did not go quietly. Isaiah 42, 49, and 53 all show this as a condition. Being silent during the trial doesn't count, as his suffering was on the cross.
78. Post #445: Isaiah 11 is about the suffering servant? No. no suffering is in the chapter.
79. Post #445: The suffering servant is the messiah? No. The chapter is in the past tense, who ever is the suffering messiah existed in Isaiah's time.
80. Post #445: Zecharia 9:9 is about Jesus? No. The condition isnt met. Jesus did not rule at all, much less from sea to sea.
81. Post #445: Isaiah 57 is talking about a future king? No.
82. Post #453: Psalm 110 talks about a mediator? No.
83. Post #456: Jesus was chosen by the Lord? No. The verse in Luke is not word of God prophecy.
84. Post #462: The branch in Isaiah and the sprout in Zecharia are the same? No.
85. Post #466: The 2nd advent is referrenced in Daniel 9? No, not there.
86. Post #466: My anoining is connected to the anointing of the messiah? No.
87. Post #485: Jesus was anointed? No.
88. Post #489: Dove represents Holy Spirit? No.
89. Post #489: A Holy Spirit is determined by its motive? No. And if so, Jesus' spirit wasn't holy, he cursed a fig tree out of spite. Nor was the spirit of the apostles holy, Annaias and Saphira.
90. Post #506: Jesus did not come to bring Judgement? No. Matthew 25
91. Post #506: Jesus did not come to destroy life came to save? No. Matthew 16. Salvation is giving up life.
92. Post #506: The holy spirit inspires to acts of faith? No. Nadav and Avihu were zapped doing an act of faith.
93. Post #512: Corinthians gives the test of a holy spirit? No. That has the spirit testifying about itself. Not a valid test.
94. Post #513: a false prophet is determined by the accuracy of their prophecy? No. A false prophet is determined by leading people to foriegn gods and lying about the LORD.
95. Post #518: good is defined by its "fruit"? No. Theft isn't "good" if one benefits from it.
96. Post #523: Galatians 3 is compatible with the theology of King David? No.
97. Post #535: All Jewish people have failed at following the commandments? No. The curses in Deuteronomy 28 indicating this has not happened.
98. Post #540: The only evidence for sinlessness is overcoming death? No.
99. Post #542: Death is the wages of sin? No.
100. Post #544: Paul is 100% true? No. Galatians 3 claims a loophole based on Jesus hanging on a tree. But the actual verse says he would have need to hang on the tree overnight. Paul ignores that condition, which invalidates the loophole. Paul is wrong.
101. Post #546: Jews ( all of them ) don't live righteously under the law? No.
102. Post #546: If Jesus is not the Son of God then there is no savior? No. Many verses prove this wrong.
103. Post #546: A day is a thousand years after Adam sinned? No.
104. Post #546: All the generations after Adam were seperated from the Holy Spirit? No.
105. Post #546: Jesus was sent to pay for Adam's sin? No.
106. Post #551: The eternal preisthood in lev. was fulfilled by Jesus and Christians? No. Hebrews 7 fails at multiple points.
107. Post #552: Psalms 62:1-2 are about the son, otherwise you're blind? No. There is no father-son dynamic there.
108. Post #552: repentence is temporary, always? No.
109. Post #552: Justice demands that Adam die for eating the forbidden fruit? No, that would be wrath, not justice.
110. Post #552: God cannot save without sending his son? No.
111. Post #556: Original sin is *proven* by Hebrew scriptures? No.
112. Post #556: Spiritual depravity is reinforced by scriptures? No.
113. Post #557: Abraham as "my master" at the right of The LORD is a distortion? No.
114. Post #568: Christ's ressurection proves his sinlessness? No.

 

[dybmh]

@Redemptionsong ,

So those are the results. 2 cases of spiritual blindness vs 114 cases of spiritual hallunciations.

Going back to the OP. Drunk on Jesus is definitely a thing. Intoxication impairs judgement and perception. Have you ever heard of "beer goggles"? That's when someone is drunk and they think someone is really great, really attractive while they're drunk. But the next day when they're sober, they are shocked, "Is that the same person I really liked the day before??"

The conclusions that you brought in this thread require:

• Ignoring verses
• Ignoring conditions of rules in scripture
• Reading the text out of order
• Making assumptions
• Adding concepts to verses that are not present in the text
• Taking prophecy out of its time and place

When someone disagrees with you on these things, it's not blindness. It is adherence to scripture which you should in theory support.

Thank you for the discussion. I enjoyed it very much.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Agreed on condition that "God's Spirit" is not Jesus.

This is an assumption. None of this is scriptural.

I have repeatedly shown this is false. And you repeatedly trot it out anyway. Are you blind?

Here is the verse from Peter, usig your preferred translation:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
​

The condition fails. Adam was not "with the Lord". You're telling me that Adam was seperated from God's Spirit after he sinned. So this verse doesn't apply.

Again, no scripture, just a fictional story.

OK. At least this is connected to the text. Thank you. It's a bit of a stretch though. Technically God "built" Eve from Adam. The KJV translates it as "made", but, i's actually "built". See below:
View attachment 69475

So, is she *really* part of Adam's body still? I don't think so. If you want to stick with "made", "made" implies complete, done, finished. In other words, she's a "complete, done, finished" new person, and is no longer an incomplete part of Adam.

But, if we assume you're right, that doesn't change 2 important points:

1. God says explicitly Adam will live multiple days. The penalty was explicitly reduced.
2. God makes clothes for both Adam and Eve and dresses them himself showing forgiveness

And BTW, I'm not arguing that Adam didn't sin. All I'm saying is the punishment was reduced, and there's no reason to think that the sin persisted generation to generation without end. I refer you back, again, to Genesis 8:21 which suggests that the curse from Genesis 3:17 was forgiven.


This is fiction. Imaginary. Physical death and ressurection has nothing to do with sin.

Christians who are saved and sinless in Christ still age and die. Innocent children die. Adam sinned and lived for approx. 1000 years.

If you want to talk about spiritual life and spiritual death, that's fine. But it's not going to prove anything about Jesus. Was he really sinless? Ressurecting and making wonders won't determine that.

​

Resurrection is, lMO, intimately bound to God's salvation, making resurrection an impossibility without God. Do you accept this?

What did Jonah pray from 'sheol'? Was he able to save himself?

Jonah 2:6. 'l went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God'.

Jonah 2:9. '...Salvation is of the LORD'.

So, what is the purpose of your human Messiah? He cannot save lsrael, so what is his role?

 

[Redemptionsong]

@Redemptionsong ,

Since you haven't replied this morning, I'm thinking maybe you're finished debating. If so, it's time to tally up the results: Spiritual Blindness vs. Spiritual Hallucinations.

Spiritual Blindness:

1. Post #21: Psalm 22 is about the crucifixion? Yes, it's similar to the Gospel story in a few places.
2. Post #358: God is unknowable? No. That was my mistake.

Spiritual Hallucinationsst #552: God cannot save without sending his son? No.

1. Post #556: Original sin is *proven* by Hebrew scriptures? No.
2. Post #556: Spiritual depravity is reinforced by scriptures? No.
3. Post #557: Abraham as "my master" at the right of The LORD is a distortion? No.
4. Post #568: Christ's ressurection proves his sinlessness? No.

It's admirable that you should have gone to the trouble of surveying all my posts and of offering your conclusion on each! But simply adding a negative comment does not constitute a rebuttal!

Jesus was the one who highlighted Psalm 110. He saw this Psalm as evidence that David had a Lord. This same "Lord' could not have been Abraham, who, well before David's life time, had been pronounced dead. So, who is David's Lord, if it is not Abraham?

The Jews at the time of Jesus could not answer this question, and it appears that you cannot either. The consequence of not being able to answer this question then casts doubt on all your other objections. For, if you acknowledge the words of God as perfect, then the Living Word of God (Christ) must also be perfect. As it says in John 1:1, 'ln the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

Scripture tells me that the Word of God was "made flesh" [John 1:14]. Jesus certainly claimed to be the Christ when he stood up in the synagogue and read Isaiah 61:1,2 [Luke 4:16-20].

You are, of course, entitled to reject the claim made by Jesus, but even your rejection was prophesied in scripture! [John 1:11]

Events are unfolding exactly as scripture teaches, and it will come as no surprise to see a falling away amongst Christians either.

This is what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:
'Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God'.

Now, tell me, who is it that is going to sit in the temple of God? Could it possibly be that the false Messiah will also be the 'son of perdition' in the temple? And will the false Messiah not also be the man chosen to be Messiah by the Jewish religious authorities?

Maybe that's what it will take to prove spiritual blindness!

 

[dybmh]

It's admirable that you should have gone to the trouble of surveying all my posts and of offering your conclusion on each! But simply adding a negative comment does not constitute a rebuttal!

Of course. I can't go through and restate each rebuttal in 1 post. Basically, each of these was either rebutted or shown to be non-scriptural guesses. Then, you changed te subject or abandoned your claim, which concedes the point.

For example. Psalm 110. As I said, the house of cards is revealed by answering a simple question. When was Jesus ever ordained as a priest forever by Malchi-tzedek's word, decree, or order?

You never answered conceding the point. The entire thread has gone that way. Going all the way back to the beginning. Who is drunk in Isaiah 29? The multitude of the nations, verse 8. It's not a positive, it's a negative. You didn't refute it, the subject got shifted, conceding the point.

Adam's punishment for eating the apple. Death isn't justice, death didn't happen that day, and God grants him more days. And then clothes Adam and Eve himself signifying forgiveness. And if that's not enough, the curse was likely lifted after the flood. And all of this is scriptural truth. Everything you brought was guesswork based on one verse. My rebuttal includeds the entire story. It cannot be refuted by scripture. All you have is a verse from Peter, which can't be trusted because of Peter's past, and doesn't apply anyway because the condition of the verse is not met. Adam is not "with God".

So, feel free to pick out any claim you like in the list, and we can discuss it. I'm happy to. Although, if you change the subject that is concession.

 

[dybmh]

Resurrection is, lMO, intimately bound to God's salvation, making resurrection an impossibility without God. Do you accept this?

The best one can say about this is scripture doesn't say. I have looked and looked and I can't find confirmation. If the evidence must come from scripture, this is unknown.

However, I will restate that an illusion or a series of illusions from Satan could make it appear as if Jesus rose from the dead. All that's needed is reanimating a corpse made to look and sound like Jesus including the open wound. Done. Satan can disguise himself, tranfigure himself, he could certainly make himself look and sound like Jesus with a gaping wound. Note: if Paul is trustworthy, then we know that Satan can transfigure, and that makes this theory scriptural.

What did Jonah pray from 'sheol'? Was he able to save himself?

Jonah 2:6. 'l went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God'.

Jonah 2:9. '...Salvation is of the LORD'.

yes, agreed salvation is from / of the LORD.

So, what is the purpose of your human Messiah? He cannot save lsrael, so what is his role?

And this is where the subject gets shifted, as per your debate style. If we focus on this, and my points about Satan's illusions are not rebutted or weakened in some way, you will have conceded the point.

Here's a link which explains the Jewish messiah. But scripturally, there's not a lot there. The Jewish messiah is not an emphasized figure in Jewish scripture.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1121893/jewish/Who-Is-Moshiach-the-Jewish-Messiah.htm

 

[dybmh]

Jesus was the one who highlighted Psalm 110. He saw this Psalm as evidence that David had a Lord. This same "Lord' could not have been Abraham, who, well before David's life time, had been pronounced dead. So, who is David's Lord, if it is not Abraham?

Abraham doesn't need to be physically alive for King David to be inspired by the story.

All that's needed from God's perspective is to recall the memory of Abraham and vanquish King David's foes ( or help King David vanquish them ) the same way Abraham conquered those four kings ( with God's help, no doubt ) immediately before meeting and being blessed by Malchi-tzedek.

Note: Because the tithe is under dispute, I have abandoned that point. That's because I am arguing in good faith. I'm not repeating previously unprovable claims. *wink-wink*. But since I don't need it here, it doesn't matter. All I need is a plausible explanation, and you have received one.

Abraham is a good fit, a better fit than Jesus in Psalm 110.

The Jews at the time of Jesus could not answer this question, and it appears that you cannot either.

First of all... hee. I just did. You assumed I couldn't, shame on you.

Second, the Jews at the time of Jesus were very very different than Jews are today. Do you think that Jews in Jesus' time had access to scripture the way we do now. They wouldn't be able to go back and show that Paul missed the condition on the tree-hanging-curse as easily as I did. Yes, they would be easy to fool.

The consequence of not being able to answer this question then casts doubt on all your other objections.

Not knowing one answer casts doubt? Boy-oh-boy. I've been able to answer pretty much all your questions. You can add ths one about Abraham to the list. Not only that, I've admitted fault when there was cause.... I think there's plenty of reasons to trust my posts. Not to mention, I bring the scripture, and I make sure to link my conclusions to scripture. So even if you doubt, we are still working off of a shared text. You can trust the text.

For, if you acknowledge the words of God as perfect, then the Living Word of God (Christ) must also be perfect.

Assumption! My God does not incarnate. That is egyptian religion. The "Living Word" is not my God. And we have shown that Jesus is not perfect in his word. John 14:12. He said "Amen, Amen" It's truly true! You can do even better than me! Not true. Not perfect. He exagerated ( or the story exagerates ), and it's losing this argument for you. I'm sorry.

As it says in John 1:1, 'ln the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

The book of John has problems. See above ^^. Basically what you have in the Book of John is desperation for the "divine presence" to reappear in Israel. That's all it's saying. Talking about it, doesn't mean that Jesus is the pefect vessel.

Scripture tells me that the Word of God was "made flesh" [John 1:14]. Jesus certainly claimed to be the Christ when he stood up in the synagogue and read Isaiah 61:1,2 [Luke 4:16-20].

See what I mean. This was refuted, several times. Isaiah 61:1-2 is preaching, proclaiming, not saving. Jesus quoting it, only shows that he was a preacher. That's all, Nada. Repeating the same failed claims about verses is a futile, and makes you look ... what ... negligent. Ignorant. Foolish. Isaiah 61:1-2 are not relevan to Jesus' status as anything other than figuratively anointed pracher. A prophet. Bilaam was a prophet. He proclaimed also.

Bringing John and Luke only help to convince that they were starting a new religion which is not compatible with Judaism. If that's what you want, please keep bringing Christian scripture.

You are, of course, entitled to reject the claim made by Jesus, but even your rejection was prophesied in scripture! [John 1:11]

John knew it wasn't Jewish! Good for him!

This is what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:
'Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God'.

Well, that's not us Jews. If that's happening in Christianity, ... I don't know what to say.

Now, tell me, who is it that is going to sit in the temple of God? Could it possibly be that the false Messiah will also be the 'son of perdition' in the temple? And will the false Messiah not also be the man chosen to be Messiah by the Jewish religious authorities?

We don't really ae a "false messiah" in Judaism. We have failed messiahs, and false prophets, and heretics. And a couple of weirdos like me, of course.

Maybe that's what it will take to prove spiritual blindness!

114 to 2, my friend. That's the score. Now we have, I don't know, 3 topics on the table. I recommend we focus on just 1 issue. Pick one and don't change the subject till one of us concedes or is unable to rebute the opposing argument. Then we can move on to the next and the next and the next...

 

[Redemptionsong]

Abraham doesn't need to be physically alive for King David to be inspired by the story.

All that's needed from God's perspective is to recall the memory of Abraham and vanquish King David's foes ( or help King David vanquish them ) the same way Abraham conquered those four kings ( with God's help, no doubt ) immediately before meeting and being blessed by Malchi-tzedek.

Note: Because the tithe is under dispute, I have abandoned that point. That's because I am arguing in good faith. I'm not repeating previously unprovable claims. *wink-wink*. But since I don't need it here, it doesn't matter. All I need is a plausible explanation, and you have received one.

Abraham is a good fit, a better fit than Jesus in Psalm 110.

First of all... hee. I just did. You assumed I couldn't, shame on you.

Second, the Jews at the time of Jesus were very very different than Jews are today. Do you think that Jews in Jesus' time had access to scripture the way we do now. They wouldn't be able to go back and show that Paul missed the condition on the tree-hanging-curse as easily as I did. Yes, they would be easy to fool.


Not knowing one answer casts doubt? Boy-oh-boy. I've been able to answer pretty much all your questions. You can add ths one about Abraham to the list. Not only that, I've admitted fault when there was cause.... I think there's plenty of reasons to trust my posts. Not to mention, I bring the scripture, and I make sure to link my conclusions to scripture. So even if you doubt, we are still working off of a shared text. You can trust the text.

Assumption! My God does not incarnate. That is egyptian religion. The "Living Word" is not my God. And we have shown that Jesus is not perfect in his word. John 14:12. He said "Amen, Amen" It's truly true! You can do even better than me! Not true. Not perfect. He exagerated ( or the story exagerates ), and it's losing this argument for you. I'm sorry.
View attachment 69528

The book of John has problems. See above ^^. Basically what you have in the Book of John is desperation for the "divine presence" to reappear in Israel. That's all it's saying. Talking about it, doesn't mean that Jesus is the pefect vessel.

See what I mean. This was refuted, several times. Isaiah 61:1-2 is preaching, proclaiming, not saving. Jesus quoting it, only shows that he was a preacher. That's all, Nada. Repeating the same failed claims about verses is a futile, and makes you look ... what ... negligent. Ignorant. Foolish. Isaiah 61:1-2 are not relevan to Jesus' status as anything other than figuratively anointed pracher. A prophet. Bilaam was a prophet. He proclaimed also.

Bringing John and Luke only help to convince that they were starting a new religion which is not compatible with Judaism. If that's what you want, please keep bringing Christian scripture.

John knew it wasn't Jewish! Good for him!

Well, that's not us Jews. If that's happening in Christianity, ... I don't know what to say.

We don't really ae a "false messiah" in Judaism. We have failed messiahs, and false prophets, and heretics. And a couple of weirdos like me, of course.

114 to 2, my friend. That's the score. Now we have, I don't know, 3 topics on the table. I recommend we focus on just 1 issue. Pick one and don't change the subject till one of us concedes or is unable to rebute the opposing argument. Then we can move on to the next and the next and the next...

Jesus rightly said that 'scripture cannot be broken', and the Christian understanding provides a coherent and consistent explanation for sin and redemption. Torah Jews, in refusing to acknowledge the righteousness of God in Christ, have, lMO, rejected the salvation sent into their midst! Does this matter? Well, not if your only concerns are for this world and this life, which appears to be the substance of your religion. But making a treasure out of the things that are impermanent is no different to finding 'fool's gold'.

The narrative of the Exodus can be viewed purely from an earthly perspective, but the spiritual viewpoint shows Moses, representing the Law, only able to take the lsraelites to the border of the Promised Land. It is Joshua who is given the authority to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. Likewise, it is Jesus Christ who provides the spiritual dimension to an earthly religion.

Then you say that John 14:3 is a false statement made by Jesus, but this overlooks the works that the Holy Spirit has achieved through the body of Christ. Jesus did not witness, during his ministry, a million people attend one of his gatherings, but such mass evangelistic meetings became possible in the twentieth century. If you don't believe a million people have ever attended one meeting then look to the evangelistic work of Reinhard Bonnke in Nigeria.

You might also think that miracles and healings only occurred at the hands of Jesus. I know, however, that this is not true. Amongst Christians who accept the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the miracles and healings of Christ continue. They continued with the apostles, and still continue today, providing evidence that Jesus is, indeed, alive.

So, what your numerous claims to 'victory' amount to is a failure to recognise the spiritual dimensions to your religion. So grounded are you in the earthly life that you fail to see the working of a parable in scripture. This does not make the earthly story wrong, it simply ignores the significance of having the earthly story. The purpose of the temporal life is to seek and find the eternal treasures of God.

Has your religion enabled you to do this?